Great Link - good to watch the proceedings. I really hope that he gets a new trial. New evidence along with DNA under the statute seems to be interpreted as definitive of granting a new trial. His attorney did a great job I think. Some of the justices look like corpses though, that's a little troublesome.

ziggy

09-30-2010, 04:51 PM

They are talking about the juror misconduct and I don't understand what they are concluding with that. That seemed to me a big deal, but not so much to the court I guess.

ziggy

09-30-2010, 05:15 PM

The justices seem to be asking a lot of questions to the attorney arguing for the state - "what harm would it do to let him present all the new evidence in the past 15 years?" - I think they might have a shot. True the appeals have failed in the past, but since this is a DP case, they may want to challenge the interpretation of this statute and how it will be used to weight the probative value.

Now they tell the state they are putting a LOT of weight on that confession and what about the recantation they ask? SA is saying that recantation is not scientific evidence. Seems the Supreme Court Justice asking the question thinks the recantation may be something new that should be brought in as well.

"Sounds as if your arguemnt is that all evidence of guilt will be considered but it will be extrememly difficult to admit evidence that is exculpatory..." the justice is grinding the SA.

Gosh I feel like they have a inkling that his trial was not fair and that new evidence is important. Now they just have to figure out how to interpret the law to fit that. I'm sure they can be creative. I hope they will.

Dirty larry

10-12-2010, 05:50 PM

They are talking about the juror misconduct and I don't understand what they are concluding with that. That seemed to me a big deal, but not so much to the court I guess.
This is probably because the ASSC has already ruled that the misconduct claim was both untimely and improper, and they have barred the circuit court from considering it.

True the appeals have failed in the past, but since this is a DP case, they may want to challenge the interpretation of this statute and how it will be used to weight the probative value.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the ASSC isn't going to interpret the statute in a way which would allow the consideration of evidence that they themselves have barred as improper and untimely.

Gosh I feel like they have a inkling that his trial was not fair and that new evidence is important.
Since the ASSC have upheld these convictions appeal after appeal, opinion after opinion, for a decade and a half, let's assume for the sake of an argument that they are somewhat familiar with the case.